Backed By Science
Results for Biceps Curls
Using a simple bar appears to result in shorter duration of activation in both biceps, compared with dumbbells. With CUBB, both biceps brachii seem to be activated for a longer duration compared with the dumbbell and bar. Thus, this apparatus seems to result in overall greater activation of the biceps for longer duration. This is seen in Fig. 1-4 where biceps EMG is activated sooner (time -0.5 - 0.5 on the x-axis), and also seen in Figure Fig 1-3 for the biceps short head.
Results for the Arnold Press
In the Arnold Press, the measured EMG signals appear to be more clearly different. The pronator teres, pectoralis major, biceps brachii long head all demonstrated considerably greater activity with CUBB (Fig 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4) whereas the triceps (Fig. 2-4) showed higher activation level during dumbbells, which may in fact be inhibitory for biceps activation. CUBB seems to be more efficient in activating the biceps.
Results Summary: Muscular activation profiles for the anterior deltoids and both biceps brachii heads were very similar between conditions, which supports the hypothesis as well as earlier pilot findings using similar methods. Both PRO and SUP activation profiles were substantially higher during the CUBB than during the DB. Increased PRO activation was expected in the CUBB because the movement is designed to add resistance to pronation. The substantial increase in SUP activation was not anticipated as it was not the targeted muscle in this movement. This indicated that adding resisted pronation to this exercise may also increase the demand on the supinator through co-activation to stabilize the wrist joint.
Results for the Push-up
Results Summary: Muscular activation profiles for the anterior deltoids and both biceps brachii heads were very similar between conditions, which supports the hypothesis as well as earlier pilot findings using similar methods. Both PRO and SUP activation profiles were substantially higher for the CUBB PRO than the other two conditions during the concentric phase. Increased PRO activation was expected in the CUBB because the movement is designed to add resistance to pronation. The substantial increase in SUP activation was not anticipated as it was not the targeted muscle in this movement. This indicated that adding resisted pronation to this exercise may also increase the demand on the supinator through co-activation to stabilize the wrist joint.
Increased SUP activation during the CUBB condition through the eccentric phase supports the hypothesis as the movement was designed to add resistance to supination during the lowering phase.
